Thread: Reasonable Gun restrictions - need some help here...

Originally Posted by iravedic

I agree that guns have been and will be a part of this country, what drives me nuts is the absoluteness of the gun supporters. They argue that no further restrictions should be placed on gun ownership - that is what the OP was an extreme example of IMO. Giving a legally blind person a permit to carry is insane.

Ah yes, the "absoluteness" only exists with gun supporters. Let's assume that every person who has a gun either is a criminal, will be a criminal, or their gun will be taken by criminals. Let's ignore the fact that the majority of gun crimes are committed by people who obtain guns illegally, and not the law abiding citizens that gun laws are designed to deter from gun ownership. Clearly I, and people like me, who have owned, bought, and sold guns for years, and in many cases decades, are the problem that needs to be stopped in this country.

As for "legally blind" as I mentioned in my first response even that is a very gray area. If you can't see 6" in front of your face no matter what type of corrective eyewear you use then I would agree you might not need a gun, but if you can see 10' without, and further with, eyewear then stock up IMO even though the law may say you are blind.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Ah yes, the "absoluteness" only exists with gun supporters. Let's assume that every person who has a gun either is a criminal, will be a criminal, or their gun will be taken by criminals. Let's ignore the fact that the majority of gun crimes are committed by people who obtain guns illegally, and not the law abiding citizens that gun laws are designed to deter from gun ownership. Clearly I, and people like me, who have owned, bought, and sold guns for years, and in many cases decades, are the problem that needs to be stopped in this country.

As for "legally blind" as I mentioned in my first response even that is a very gray area. If you can't see 6" in front of your face no matter what type of corrective eyewear you use then I would agree you might not need a gun, but if you can see 10' without, and further with, eyewear then stock up IMO even though the law may say you are blind.

See that's the problem. No one is saying take the guns away from law abiding citizens - at least I'm not. What I am advocating: there are certain restrictions that should be placed on gun ownership, those restrictions may have a minor negative impact on a law abiding citizen (i.e. background checks, delayed purchase, taking a vision test) but IMHO the 'cost' to the law abiding citizen is outweighed by the benefit. It's being rationale about the issue - why shouldn't we require more rigorous gun ownership laws? There are definitely people who ARE buying guns that we would prefer not have them, or who are buying them illegally.

Would it really negatively impact any law abiding citizen who wants to own a gun?

Turning to the vision issue - if you don't possess the bear minimum skills to be able to safely use the gun - IMO the ability to see what you are pointing at - you shouldn't have a gun. Fine if they want to collect guns - go for it, there are already a ton of exceptions for collectible firearms.

Originally Posted by Stephen Kuusisto

"I don't always shoot guns when I'm blind, but when I do, I do it in Iowa. Stay loaded, my friends.

Originally Posted by iravedic

Okay, first a disclaimer. I am a gun owner - both for hunting and home protection. I have a pistol, a rifle and several shot-guns. I do not have a CC permit nor would I ever seek one - personal reasons. I tend to support heightened background checks, assault rifle bans, elimination of gun-show loopholes, etc. I am not anti-gun, but do not think that the 2nd amendment should be applied to prevent ANY regulation on guns. My mother is also legally blind and from Iowa. That becomes relevant because of this:

Gun permits for the blind? Iowa grants them, stirs debate - CNN.com

I will say that there are a wide range of vision capabilities that will be considered legally blind - it's a spectrum with total profound blindness at the far extreme - but even at the low end of the range (where my mother is classified) these folks can't see shit 2-3 feet in front of their face.

IMHO - it would be perfectly reasonable to require a person applying for a gun permit to be able to SEE, it's a deadly weapon not that dissimilar from a car, you have to be able to see to drive.

Bolding mine. If you think the only people that affects are "criminals" then your thinking on this is far from rational. I guess if assault rifles, high capacity magazines, or whatever else you want to throw out next are truly the problem then you should probably start the vote to excomm me so that TPG doesn't suffer the black eye when the mass murderer within me comes out.

I have stated previously that I have no issues with intelligent legislation, if those two words can even be used in the same sentence, but that isn't good enough for most people unless we agree that we should just ban all the things. I support enforcement of the laws we already have as opposed to imposing new laws that won't be enforced either, but I am sure that is just because I am unwavering, unlike those who have been preaching from the ban all guns pulpit for years.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Bolding mine. If you think the only people that affects are "criminals" then your thinking on this is far from rational. I guess if assault rifles, high capacity magazines, or whatever else you want to throw out next are truly the problem then you should probably start the vote to excomm me so that TPG doesn't suffer the black eye when the mass murderer within me comes out.

I have stated previously that I have no issues with intelligent legislation, if those two words can even be used in the same sentence, but that isn't good enough for most people unless we agree that we should just ban all the things. I support enforcement of the laws we already have as opposed to imposing new laws that won't be enforced either, but I am sure that is just because I am unwavering, unlike those who have been preaching from the ban all guns pulpit for years.

I honestly don't think we are that far apart - I too want to see intelligent gun laws. The ones we have right now don't appear that intelligent to me - see OP. Absolutely we should enforce the laws we have - the problem is that those laws have been jumbled, watered down, confused by the relentless drone of the NRA who see ANY gun law as the government trying to take their guns away. The result is we end up with a patchwork of laws across the country that make very little sense.

Originally Posted by iravedic

See that's the problem. No one is saying take the guns away from law abiding citizens - at least I'm not. What I am advocating: there are certain restrictions that should be placed on gun ownership, those restrictions may have a minor negative impact on a law abiding citizen (i.e. background checks, delayed purchase, taking a vision test) but IMHO the 'cost' to the law abiding citizen is outweighed by the benefit. It's being rationale about the issue - why shouldn't we require more rigorous gun ownership laws? There are definitely people who ARE buying guns that we would prefer not have them, or who are buying them illegally.

Would it really negatively impact any law abiding citizen who wants to own a gun?

Turning to the vision issue - if you don't possess the bear minimum skills to be able to safely use the gun - IMO the ability to see what you are pointing at - you shouldn't have a gun. Fine if they want to collect guns - go for it, there are already a ton of exceptions for collectible firearms.

Are these types of restrictions REALLY too much to ask a law-abiding citizen to bear - in order to bear arms?